Optical communication systems have become widely implemented in todays telecommunication networks. The Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) is a standard for Synchronous Telecommunication Signals used for optical transmission based on the synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH). SONET can provide the ability to combine and consolidate traffic through grooming, and can reduce the amount of back to back multiplexing in providing transport services for ATM, SMDS, and Frame Relay, etc. Furthermore, network providers can use SONET network features to reduce the operation costs of the transmission network. The next generation of optical networks may be the optical transport network (OTN) standard.
The network standards are ANSI T1.105 for SDH and Bellcore GR-253-CORE for SONET, which define the physical interface and optical line rate known as the optical carrier (OC) signals, a frame format, and an OAM Protocol. In operation of the SONET system, user signals are converted into a standard electrical format called the Synchronous Transport Signal (STS), which is the equivalent of the optical signal. A single optical channel operates and transmits data according to a high speed synchronous digital hierarchy standards, such as the SONET OC-3, OC-12, and OC-48 rate protocols, which carry rates equivalent to tens of thousands of voice calls. Accordingly, it is critical in todays optical communication systems to provide and maintain the integrity of data communication networks even during problem time periods, due to the large number of transmissions that can be interrupted.
The increased capacity of optical fibre has raised concerns about the reliability and survivability of an optical network, since a single cable cut or equivalent malfunction can impact a large amount of data traffic. Cable cuts can be frequent and almost impossible to avoid, caused by human error or inclement weather. Furthermore, equipment failures resulting from man made or natural disasters are additional possibilities. Accordingly, optimized protection signaling systems and methods are desired in order to quickly re-establish network communications once failures have been detected.
Two types of failures can be experienced in a telecommunication network, such as line failures and module failures. The basic telecommunication network structure consists of various links situated between corresponding transmitters and receivers, which are also referred to as modules. Accordingly, a line failure can include damage to the physical fibre and optical components, such as the malfunction of amplification equipment situated along the optical data path. In contrast, the module failure can consist of the transmission or reception equipment, such as a laser diode transmitter. It should be noted that both line failures and module failures may disable the network segment or link between two adjacent nodes. It is therefore required in todays telecommunication network systems to provide restoration techniques to restore the interrupted traffic temporarily until the detected failure is repaired. One such protection system currently in use is line protection.
One known line protection system is Bi-direction Line Switched Ring systems (BLSR), which have the advantage of relatively fast speed protection circuitry. These ring systems consist of a plurality of nodes coupled in a ring by two multiplexed communication paths, which provide data transmission in opposite directions around the ring. In the presence of a fault such as a fibre cut, the BLSR system detects the presence of this failure in the two nodes immediately adjacent the fault and the communications are maintained via both paths forming the closed loop. The communication signals are therefore transmitted along the two paths from the two nodes adjacent to the fault. The BLSRs are currently used in Backbone networks and are therefore built for higher data transfer rates such as the OC-12/48 Further BLSR protection systems can include 4F and 2F implementations.
One disadvantage with BLSR systems is that they can not be easily applied to already existing (synchronous or asynchronous) communication systems without requiring costly equipment upgrades, for example a change in wavelength or bit rate involves a change in equipment. In addition, BLSR systems have disadvantages in that they do not provide for 1:N protection (i.e. protection of N working paths using at least one shared protection link) since path deployment is typically designated as 50% working and 50% protection, however as BLSR does not support Timeslot Interchange (TSI), the actual efficiency of the working bandwidth is about three quarters of the designated 50% deployment. Furthermore, BLSR systems can have an additional limitation that all nodes around the ring must be of the same type and must have the same capacity
One technique that has been tried in order to remove the problems of the BLSR design is a mesh protection design. In a full mesh design, each network element within a network is coupled to every other network element. On a partial mesh design, less optical carrier links are utilized. Well known mesh techniques have an advantage in terms of minimising the requirements for dedicated protection link bandwidth, since the optical bandwidth used for protection is only assigned to a protection link (or protection path having a series of links) during a failure situation, hence reducing the cost of additional fibre and providing greater network flexibility. However, one key problem with these well known mesh designs is the amount of time that is required to locate and establish the required protection link and a subsequent new working path after a failure occurs. The time it takes to re-establish communications after failure is critical since the time period during protection switching and protection link establishment should be small enough so as to practically unnoticeable the devices or people transmitting/receiving the data traffic. These systems typically use the control layer of the network to assist in protection switching, which can provide undesirable protection switching times on the order of seconds. Accordingly, alternative protection signaling systems and methods are desired to potentially reduce the switching times by an order of magnitude.
A further solution to address the desirability of fast protection times is to provide switching at the line level between adjacent network elements. This type of system could probably provide times in the 50 msec range, however would require protection bandwidth to be made available between every network element which would add to the complexity of the network architecture. Another solution could be to use the signaling network to do the switching, which could provide flexibility of sharing bandwidth between adjacent network elements. However, this method of using the signaling network has a disadvantage due to the processing of network overhead, whereby desirable protection times of less than 300 msec may not be achievable consistently. Accordingly, alternative protection signaling systems and methods are desired to reduce switching times, without substantially increasing network architecture and/or overhead processing.
A further disadvantage of present mesh protection schemes is that once a shared protection link is assigned to help provide protection backup to a particular working path, the remaining working paths associated with the shared protection link typically become unprotected. The process of implementing nodal/path diversity for the mesh network can help alleviate some of the risk involved with using a shared protection link between multiple working paths. However, there is a possibility of two unrelated failures occurring on separate working paths, thereby resulting in the undesirable situation of the two working paths competing to acquire usage of the one common shared protection link.
Another disadvantage of current mesh protection schemes is that both working paths and protection paths (having a plurality of protection links) are defined from the source node to the termination node. Therefore, once selected, the entire protection pathway consisting of multiple protection channels or timeslots is assigned to accommodate any transmissions originally destined over the failed working path. This symmetrical assignment of protection capacity can result in an inefficient use of available bandwidth on the protection path, as some of the protection capacity assigned is typically not used by the traffic demands when transferred from the failed working path.
It is an object of the present invention to provide a protection signaling system in a shared mesh environment to obviate or mitigate some of the above-presented disadvantages.